## u.s. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTA'Jim.tt:::'CE

# IVED OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

# n &:: FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

## NOV 04 

## 2013 

# HEARING DOCKET FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,

VS. 

### LIBERTYFOUNDATION, Respondent. DocketNo. FAA-2012-0477 FAACaseNo. 2011GL030070

Judge Sullivan

FAA'SRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND FAA'S MOTIONTO COMPEL 

### The FAA, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds in opposition to Respondent's Motion to Strike. Additionally, the FAA hereby files its Motion to Compel Respondentto properly answerthe FAA'sdiscovery requests. FactualBackground Pursuantto the Judge's August 27, 2013, Order, discovery was re-opened inthis case for the limited purpose of examining new matters identified in the Amended Complaint. On September 11, 2013, Respondent served new discovery requests, which were received by the FAA that day via facsimile. On September 12, 2013, the FAA served new discovery requests, which were received by the Respondent via facsimile that day. Exhibit A (FAA's Limited DiscoveryRequests). On Sunday, September 22, 2013, the undersigned's daughter was born. Accordingly, the undersigned was not in the office beginning on Monday, September 23, 2013. This absence

1

### continued through October 1, 2013, when the undersigned was, pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, prohibitedfrombeingpresentinthe office duringthe government shutdown. Respondent's discovery responses were submitted on October 8, 2013, and were received bythe FAA on Thursday, October 17, 2013, when the federal government shutdown ended, and the undersigned briefly returnedto the office. See 

### Exhibits B, C, D (Respondent's Responses to FAA's Discovery Requests). The FAA responded to Respondent's Discovery Requests on October 18, 2013, including routine discovery objections. The undersigned was out of the office from October 21-23, 2013, while attending a previously-scheduled out-of-town NTSB hearing. The undersigned was out ofthe office from October 28-29, 2013, while attending an NTSB emergency hearing that had been rescheduled due to the government shutdown1 

### On October 29, 2013, Respondent moved to strike the FAA's objections to some ofits discoveryrequests. Respondent's Motionto Strike ShouldBe Denied Respondent's Motion to Strike is founded on Paragraph 6 ofthe August 27, 2013 Order. Respondent's motion quotes that paragraph as saying "any objection(s) or motions regarding additional discovery shall be filed withinten (10) days 

### afterreceipt." (emphasis in original). See 

### Motion to Strike**~** 

### 2. However, Respondent leaves outthe opening clause ofthat sentence from the Order- "Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.220(f)-(k),

..."The Order places a 10-day time limit on the specialized objections, pursuant to § 13.220(f)-(k), that must be filed with the Judge. _However, the objections that Respondent moves to strike were routine discovery objections as

1TheNTSB general counsel's office determinedthat, once an airmanhad surrenderedhis certificatespursuantto an emergency order ofthe Administrator,the emergency hearing was notitselfa matter ofpublic safety and, therefore, holding suchhearings duringthe shutdownwouldhave violatedthe anti-deficiency act. However, once the shutdown ended, the emergencyhearings hadto beheldimmediately becausethe airman is entitledto suchby statute, given thatthe airmanis already withouthis certificates. 

### 2

### covered by 

### § 13.220(d), which are not "filed" with the Judge at all. Accordingly, those objections were due to be submitted

- and were submitted

- along with the FAA's discovery responses. That the parties did not understand these objections to be 

### due at an earlier time frame is highlighted by Respondent's own discovery responses, which include discovery objections, and whichwere submitted on October 8, 2013, wellmorethan 10 days afterRespondentreceived the FAA'sdiscoveryrequests on September 12,2013. 

### See ExhibitB ,,7, 8, 11, 12. Further, even ifthe 10-day time limit referenced in,6 ofthe August 27, 2013 Order applied to the sort ofroutine discovery objections at issue here, the Motion to Strike should be denied. As Respondent notes in its Motion to Strike, if a 1 0-day deadline was applicable, that would have made the objections due on September 23, 2013. The birth ofthe undersigned's daughter on September 22, 2013, followed almost immediately thereafter by the federal government shutdown (atimeperiod during whichitwouldhavebeen illegalfor the w1dersigned to work on this case), is more than ample good cause for any late filing ofthese objections, which were served on Respondent on the second day after the shutdown ended. Additionally, as outline in the FAA's discovery response, the information covered by the objections either has already been identified more than once, or is llilrelated to the Amended Complaint. No purpose wouldbe served by fulfilling Respondent's requestto strikethese objections, otherthanto place

aburdenonthe FAAthat didnothingto advancetheresolution ofthis litigation. Respondent's Motionto Strike shouldbe denied. Motionto Compel The Agency also moves to that the Judge compel Respondent to properly respond to the FAA's discovery requests. Respondent has simply refused to answer some of the FAA's

3

### discovery requests without any rational basis. Respondent, having challenged the allegations in the Amended Complaint, is notpermitted to simply refuse to disclose the basis (ifany) for those denials.As an initial matter, the FAA notes that there is good cause for the apparent untimely filing ofthis Motionto Compel. As discussed above, the FAA received Respondent's discovery responses on October 17, 2013. The 10-day limit outlinedinthe August 27, 2013 Order ended on October 28, 2013. Accordingly, this motion,filed on October 30,2013,is two days outside ofthe 1

0-day period. However, as indicated in the factual background above, there is good cause for the slight untimeliness of the motion. The FAA received Respondent's deficient discovery responses on October 17, 2013. In the nine business days following, the undersigned was at hearing or traveling for a hearing on five ofthem

- including an emergency hearing on the date that the motion to compel would have been due, and the following date. The undersigned also had to spend time preparing for each ofthese hearings, which he could not have done prior to receiving the discovery responses on October 17, 2013. The need to prepare for and conduct these hearings on such a shorttime frame was necessitated by the govermnent shutdown, which

was outside the control ofthe undersigned or the FAA. Furthermore, as one might reasonably guess, these two hearings and Respondent's discovery response were far from the only urgent matters awaiting the undersigned atthe conclusion ofthe government shutdown. Forexample, it seemed appropriate and professional to prioritize getting the Agency's discovery responses to Respondent, rather than prioritizing a review to see whether Respondent had complied with its discovery obligations. Under these extraordinary circumstances, which were beyond the control ofthe undersigned orthe FAA, two-day delay in filing the Motion to Compel should notpermit Respondentto get away with simply refusing to answer appropriate discoveryrequests.



### 4

### Regarding the discovery requests in particular, Respondenthas failed to properlyrespond to Interrogatories 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 and Request for Production 2. As to most ofthese discovery requests, Respondent did not even object, but simply refused to respond. Even where it did object, these objections arewithoutmerit. InInterrogatories #3 and #4 was asked to state the basis for his denial ofparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) of the Amended Complaint, including but not limited to its basis for denying the allegations thatwork was notperformed in amanner acceptable to the Administrator and thatthe aircraftwas notrestoredto its original or properly altered condition. See 

### ExhibitA. Complainant declined to provide an explanation for either denial, instead stating that (1) 

### it is the Administrator's burden to prove his allegations and (2) it had a right to rely on the work of maintenance personnel. See 

### Exhibit B**~~** 

### 3-4. This answer is non-responsive. It 

### is true that the FAA has the burden of proof. It 

### is also irrelevant. In almost all types of litigation, it is the Complainantwho bears the burdenofproof. This does notmeanthatthe Respondentispermitted to deny the allegations in a Complaint, and then refuse to explain the basis for that denial. If Respondenthas abasis for denyingthe allegationsinthe Complaint, itmustexplainthatbasis. If 

### Respondenthas no basis for denying the allegation, thenitis required to admit it. The questions askedbytheFAAinthese discovery requests are not obscure ones. Respondenthas deniedthat it improperly performed maintenance and alterations, and ifit wishes to maintain this denial, it must explain the basis for the belief that its work was properly performed2 

### Respondent has denied that it failed to restore the aircraftto its originally or properly altered condition, and ifit wishes to maintain that denial, it must explain the basis for the belief that the aircraft was

2 TheFAA, as discussed at lengthit its Motionfor SummaryJudgment, has already explainedmyriadways in which the workperfotmedwas improper. IfRespondenthas noexplanationto counterthatprovidedby the FAA andthe several expertwitnesses, thenthere is no genuine dispute offact andthe FAA is entitledtojudgmentas amatterof law on this point. 

### 5

### restoredto its original orproperly altered condition? Finally, Respondent's assertionthatitis not legally responsible for any improperly performed work onthe aircraft does not mean that it does not have to address the question of whether the work was improperly performed in the first place. Respondent shouldberequired to answer these Interrogatories. IfRespondent can provide

no basis for its denial of paragraphs S(a) and S(b) of the Amended Complaint, then those allegations shouldbe deemed admitted. In requesting that discovery be reopened, Respondent asserted (among other things) that it neededto conduct new depositions ofthe witnesses ithad already deposed -those individuals being Thomas Soerens, Thomas Duellman, Donald Dodge and Timothy Buorgoine. See 

### Motion for Continuance; Transcript of August 23, 2013 Conference Call at 16-19, 42-46. However, Respondent declined to disclose during the conference call what it sought to re-depose those witnesses about. Transcript at 43, 46, 53. As a result, the FAA issued interrogatory 7 on this topic. Exhibit A. Respondent objected to the request as "incomprehensible." Exhibit B**~**

### 7. A deposition of a witness may be conducted where that witness has knowledge of relevant, admissible facts, or had knowledge that could lead to relevant, admissible facts. Interrogatory 7 asked Respondent to identify what, if anything, it believes these four witnesses know that is germane to the Amended Complaint. Respondent's objection is without foundation. If Respondent is aware of any facts as discussed in 

### the interrogatory, it must disclose them. If Respondent does not have any basis for believing that these witnesses have relevant, discoverable information, then it must disclose that as well. Respondent should be required to fully respondto Interrogatory 7.

3 Again, theFAA, as discussed at length in its Motion for Summary Judgment, has already explainedmyriad ways in which the workperfonnedwas improper. IfRespondenthas no explanationto counterthatprovidedby the FAA andthe severalexpertwitnesses,thenthere is no genuine dispute offact audtheFAA is entitledtojudgmentas a matter oflawonthis point. 

### 6

### As discussed atlengthinthe FAA'sMotionfor Summary Judgment, the August23, 2013 conference call, and the Amended Complaint, the Amendment to the Complaint was based on statementsmade by Mr. 

### Schneider and Mr. 

### Fowlerduring their depositions. As aresult,the FAA asked in interrogatory 8 whether Respondent asserted that there had been any error in the statements of Mr. 

### Schneider and Mr. Fowler during those depositions, as it pertained to the Amended Complaint. Exhibit A. Although Respondent has been informed repeatedly and with specific citations as to how the statements of Mr. Schneider and Mr. Fowler relate to the Amended Complaint, and although the discovery request was explicitly limited to matters relatingto the Amended Complaint, Respondentrefused to answer this interrogatory on thebasis that it was "confusing" because the depositions took place prior to the Amended Complaint. Exhibit B**~·** 

### 8. This objection is specious. Respondentis well aware that statements made by Mr. Schneider and Mr. Fowler relate to the Amended Complaint. Respondent should be required to disclose whether itbelieves that any ofthe pertinent statements madeby Mr. Schneider and Mr. Fowlerwereinerror. In Interrogatory 12, Respondent was asked to state the basis for denying any of the Requests for Admission that accompanied the interrogatories. Respondent denied most ofthe Requests for Admission. See 

### Exhibit D. However, Respondent refused to answer Interrogatory #12 on the basis that "Respondent is required only to admit or deny each Request for Admission." Exhibit B**~** 

### 12. This is accurate, but irrelevant. When responding to a Request for Admission, one need only admit or deny the request. However, this has not relation to whether

one must respond to an interrogatory onthe subject. An interrogatory requesting the basis for a party denying Requests for Admissionis commonplace and appropriate. Respondenthas no basis forrefusing to answerthis interrogatory, and shouldberequiredto do so.



### 7

### Respondent has asserted that, although Rodney Schneider was its Director of Maintenance at the time the improper alterations and maintenance were performed, he was not its agent. Since all ofthe evidence presented so far indicates that the Director ofMaintenance

was an agent on the subject ofaircraft maintenance and alterations, the FAA asked in Request for Production#2 for documentation onthis work, including communications between the three of Respondent's personnel who were involved

- Rodney Schneider (its Director of Maintenance), Ray Fowler (its Executive Director and Chi'efPilot), and Cullen Underwood (one ofits pilots). Respondent provided no documentation in response to this request, asserting that "all such documents have been produced previously" and that Respondent itself is not in possession ofthe written communications between those three individuals. Exhibit C**~** 

### 2. The undersigned notes that what has been "previously produced" by Respondent on this subject is limited to the maintenance log entry itself and photographs, with no documentation produced concerning the decision-making process for the alteration. Additionally, Respondent's response to this requestfor production concerning written communication implies that such documents do exist, but that they are not in Respondent's possession. However, the fact that such documentation may be in the possession ofMr. 

### Fowler, Mr. Schneider, or Mr. 

### Underwood- a litigant's discovery responsibilities are not limited to documents and information in its personal possession. If any of these three individuals are in possession of the requested documents, Respondentmustobtainthem. Allthree work ofthese individuals workwith and for Respondent, including Mr. 

### Fowler as a corporate officer. All three ofthese individuals have been identified by Respondent as expected witnesses at the hearing. For the two whose depositions were requested, bothwereproduced byRespondent. There has beenno indicationthat any ofthe three individuals has become hostile to Respondent, orhasrefused to cooperate- and ifthey do refuse



### 8

### to produce documents in their possession, then Respondent must inform the Judge and the FAA ofthis fact so that an appropriate subpoena can be issued. Especially given Respondent's status

as a corporate entity, it cannot simplyrest on the fact that the written communications between the individuals who make decisions and take actions on its behalfare in the physical possession ofthose individuals. Respondent should berequiredto produce the requesteddocuments. Conclusion Respondent's Motion to Strikethe FAA'sobjectionsto its improperdiscoveryrequests is without any foundation, and shouldbe denied. However, Respondent's ownrefusal to comply withdiscovery should be corrected, and Respondent compelledto fully respondto the FAA's discoveryrequests WHEREFORE, the FAArequeststhattheJudge compelRespondentto complywiththe FAA'sdiscoveryrequests and deny Respondent's Motionto Strike.

Respect lly submitted

# this~~ ofOctober, 2013.

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel



### 9

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Motion to Compel and Response to Motion to Strike was sent: Original and one copyviacertifiedmailto: FederalAviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 One copy viacertifiedmail and facsimile to: TheHonorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536 StuartA. Goldstein, P.A. 7300 North Kendall Dr., Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 Facsimile: (305) 670-7065

# ~~rP?~~ LegalAssistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

### OCT 

## 30 2013 Dated

10U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATlOi·: OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,

# ~FILE

vs. Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 FAA CaseNo. 2011GL030070 LIBERTY FOUNDATION. Respondent. Judge Sullivan

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST LIMITED DISCOVERY REQUESTS Pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 13.220, please respond to the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production ofDocuments, and Requests for Admission separately and fully under oath within 30 days from your receiptofthis request. This request is intended to discover information and/or documents not only within your personal knowledge or obtainableby you, but also information in the possession ofor obtainable by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on your behalforon their behalf. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu ofan answer. You may respond to the Requests for Production by producing true and accurate copies ofthe originals to the undersigned. Ifyou refuse to produce any documents or other evidence on the basis ofprivilege or other objection, identify specifically the items withheld from production. Each response shall be continuing in nature so as to require you to file supplemental responses in the following circumstances: a) When you become aware ofa fact or the identity and location ofany document that is not identified in your original response; b) When your original response was initially correct, but subsequently rendered incorrect orinaccurate basedupon information discovered after the original response is prepared. Ifyour answer to any interrogatory is "N/ A" or "Not Applicable," describe in detail your reasons for making such reply. In reply to any interrogatory, do not merely state, "see attached records" unless you have no additional memory ofthe matters referred to in the interrogatory. If you have any additional memory ofthe relevant events, describe it 

### in detail.You are reminded that whethec >,he**Adm~ndrator** has the burden ofproofon an issue has no effect on whetheryou are obliged to answer a discovery request. DEFINITIONS "Documents" include, without limitation, notes, memoranda, mvoices, work orders, receipts, reports, letters, audio and video tapes, photographs, facsimiles, transcripts, written statements, records of conversations, computer disks or tapes, e-mails, and other tangible or intangible materials. "You" or "your"refers to Respondent, The LibertyFoundation. "Identify," when referring to persons, requires you to provide the full name, address, telephone number (business and residence, where available) and any other information pertinent to locating such person. When pertaining to an object or place, "identify" means to provide the name, location or other description ofsuch object orplace. "Thismatter" refers to theevents and circumstancesunderlying the allegations set forth in the Complaint, including amendments and other additions to the Complaint. INTERROGATORIES I. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial ofparagraph 7(b) ofthe AmenJed Complaint, includingbut not limitedto specificallyany and all bases for your belief thatthe aircraft was safe for flight andairworthy. 2. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for denial ofparagraph 16(a) ofthe Amended Complaint, including but not limited to specifically any and all bases for yourbelief that a maintenance record entry was made concerning the repair ofthe fuel leak prior to the June 13, 2011 flight. 3. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial ofparagraph S(a) ofthe Amended Complaint, including but not limitedto specifically any and all bases for your belief that Mr. Schneider used methods, techniques, and/orpractices acceptable to the Administrator. 4. State with specificity the factual and legal bases for your denial ofparagraph S(b) ofthe Amended Complaint, including but not limitedto specifically any and all bases for your belief that Mr. Schneiderdid the work in such a way and/or used materials ofsuchqualitythat the aircraft was restored to its original orproperly altered condition. 5. State with specificitythe factual and legal bases for yourdenial ofparagraph 18 ofthe Amended Complaint, including but not limitedto specifically any and all bases for your belief that Mr. Schneiderwas not found to be in violation as listed in the Order ofSuspension against him and/orany and all bases for your beliefthatyou were not liable for his actions as Directorof Maintenance.6. Ifyou assert that Mr. Schn<:ider was not serving as your agent when serving as your Director ofMaintenance. state with specificity all factual and legal bases for this assertion. 7. Ifyou asser1 that Thomas Soerens. Thomas Duellman, Donald Dodge, and/or Timothy Bourgoinehave knowledge offacts relevant to the amendment ofthe Complaint, orthat arc otherwise discoverable, state with specificity the bases for such assertior1, including specifically whatfacts each individual has knowledge of, why you believe such facts are relevant and discoverable, and why you believe he has such knowledge. 8. Ifyou assert any errorin the deposition testimony ofMr. Sclmeider or Mr. Fowler concerning the matters addressed in the amended Complaint, identify those errors with specificity. why you believe they were in error, and what the correct statements would have been. 9. Ifyou assert that all orpart ofthe opinion ofthe identified metallurgical expert previously submitted in this case remains accurate despite the testimony from Mr. Sclmeiderthat the welding on the new fuel tanks had cracked priorto the June 13, 20II t1ight and fire, state with specificity the bases for that belief II. With regards to the matterraised in the amendment to the Complaint, please identify each witness you may call to testify at hearing and summarize the substance ofthc expected testimony. 12. Ifyou deny any ofthe Requests for Admission, state with specificity the basis for the denial. 13. With respectto each Interrogatory, Request j()fProduction, and Request for Admission. identify each and every person assisting in the response to that request for production. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION I. Ifyou assert that a maintenance record entry was made for the repair ofthe June 20II fuel leak priorto the June 13, 2011, t1ight, please produce that maintenance record, including the entry. 2. Please produce any and all documents concerning the work performed on the fuel system during the winterof!ate 20I0 and early 20II that culminated in the February 20II return to service, including but not limited to any communications to orfrom Rodney Schneider, Ray Fowler, and Cullen Underwood about the type, manner orcost ofwork performed on the fuel system. 3. Please produce any and all documents consultedin preparingresponses to these discovery requests.4. Please produce any and all documents identified or referenced in your inteuogaiory responses. REQUESTS FORADMISSION 1. Admit that N390TH was not in a condition for safe operation by reason ofthe work performed on the fuel system that culminated in the February 24. 2011, return to service. 2. Admitthat some ofthe welding done during the work culminating in the February 24. 2011, return to service failed. 3. Admit that the June 2011 fltelleak was caused by the work culminating in the February 24, 2011. return to service. 4. Admit that the June 20II fuel leak was caused by a failure ofwelding performed during the work that culminated in the February 24,2011, return to service. 5. Admit that the expert opinion youpreviously submitted concerning the quality ofthe welding was in error. 6. Admit that the expert opinion you previously submitted concerning whether the welding had failed prior to the June 13, 2011 fire was inerror. 7. Admit that the maintenance log entry dated June 13, 2011 for the repair ofthe fuel leak was not made until afterthe aircraft was operated. 8. Admit the authenticity ofthe Order ofSuspension attached to the Amendment to the Complaint. 9. Admitthat the Order ofSuspension attached to the Amendmentto the Complaint constitutes a finding ofviolation against Mr. Schneider as listed in the Order. I0. Admitthat no maintenance log entry was made for the repair ofthe June 2011 fuel leak prior to the June 13, 20II flight. 11. Admit that N390TH was unsafe for flight at the time ofthe June 20II fuel leak. 

### Y" Respectfully submitted this

## _il_day ofSeptember, 2013.

# 4;=~--- CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's First Limited Discovery Requests was sent via certified mail and facsimile to: Stuart A Goldstein. P.A. 9350 South Dixie Highway. lOth Floor Miami. FL 3 3 I56 Facsimile: (305) 670-7065 

# (,lykLJ (i

# ~ /F DONNA STANLEY ( Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel

!.. lJ :**~·** Dated



### 7011 2970 0003 9802 0283

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of Hearings Washington, D. C.

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 (EIR 2011-GL-03-0070)

(Civil Penalty Action) Hon J. E. Sullivan. Administrative Law Judge**R~SPONDENT~S** AN_SWERS_IQ COMF'LA!NANT_'S 

### l.IMlT!;J:l INTERFlQGAIQRIE.S 1. The a1rcrafi was safe for flight and airworthy because the work performed, as described in the deposition of M1·. Schneider, was done in a manner which would**~ave** been acceptable to the Administrator as described in Mr Schneider's deposition of his conversations with FAA Inspectors David Miller and David Alderman. In addition, the return to ser·vice was prepared by competent, professional maintenance providers who provided an a.pprotxia;e r·ewrn to service. 2 A maintenance entry was made 1n the a1rcraft's discrepancy log book whrch was kept rc ti-re arrcrart and which was destroyed rn the fire This log entry conformed to the**mqurrern,~nts** of 14 CFR 43 9 Acopy of the discrepancy log form has been provided to Claimant with Respondent's response to Complainant's Limited Request For Product;on 3. Conlp!ainant bea!'s the burden of proof as to what methods, techmques. andior practices were or would have been acceptable to the Administrator. The Adminrstrator has not provided such proof in thrs case. In addition. Respondent had R right to rely on the maintenance competence of its maintenance providers, Including Mr. Schneider, who providet'J Respondent an appropriate return to service. 4. Complainant bears the burden of proof as to the manner in which the work was done and/or in what manner the materials used were not of such a quality that the aircraft was not restored to its original or properly altered condition. The Administrator has not provided such proof in this case. In addition, Respondent had a right to rely on the maintenance competence pi its maintenance providers. includrng Mr. Schneider, w110 pmvided Respondent an appropriate return to service.2 5. Mr. Schneiders case was settled with counsel of the Great Lakes Region. It was a settlement of a drsputed claim Mr Schneider never admitted any violations and none were found in any adjudicatory proceeding 6 Mr Schneider had no legal authority provided by Respondent other than to maintain the Foundation's aircraft in the manner he determined was appropriate under his personal A & P certificate. He was never an officer or director of The Liberty Foundation At all times material Mr. Schneider was a full time employee of Delta Airlines. In addition, Respondent was not required to have a Director of Maintenance. 7. Respondent objects to this Interrogatory on the bases that it is vague and rncomprel1ensible. Messers Soerens and Duelln1an testified by deposition in the Schneider case. Messers. Dodge and Bourgorne testified by deposition in this proceeding and all such testimony is a matter of record. already rn the possession of Complainant. Responclent has not yet determmed whicl1 parts il any. it will use of those depositions in its defense. The deposrlions of Messers. Dodge and Bourgoine were taken before the Amendment to the Complaint If Respondent already knew what facts these four witnesses were in possession of related to the amendments, additional discovery would not be necessary. 8. Respondent objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is confusing in that the deposrtions described were taken prior to the amendments to the complaint 9. All of Mr Genculu's report and opinions remain vaiici for the work perfortne(l anci the propnety oi the materrats used. 10 There is no Interrogatory 10. 11. Respondent objects to thrs Interrogatory as ;nvasive of the work product privilege and premature. Respondent t1as not made a determination, other trran as previously described, as to whicl1 witnesses it will call and !herr expected testimony. Without waiving suer, objections, and without limiting their testimony in any way by the following descriptions, Respondent states it will likely call Rodney Schneider as a witnes:;; to testify d0 to tire log entry ne made rn the aircraft discrepancy log book as well as the work he performed and all of the matters discussed in his deposition; Respondent may call the pilots who flew the aircraft on June 1i, 2011 (John Hess and Bud Sittig), to testify as to their revrew of the discrepancy log book prior to the flight 'rn June 11, 2011; Respondent may call Cullen Underwood to describe the process of replacing the tanks and the work performed/materials utrlized in the process as well as his observations of t11e work performed on tile #1 tank in June, 2011, Respondent may call representative(s) of Cobb lnclustrial to testify as to the work they performed on the aluminum tanks; Respondent may call FAA Inspectors David Alderman and David Miller as to their communications with Mr. Schneider and other persons of The Liberty Foundation and their observations of the operation of the Uberty Belle; Respondent may call Chuck Giese to testify as to hrs observations of the work performed on the arrcraft in clune, 2011 and his observations of the #1 tank alter the fire: Respondent may3 call john Hess to testify as to hrs observatrons of the #1 tank after the fire: Respondent may call Scott Maher to testify as to his observations of the #1 tank after the fire. 12 Respondent is required to only admit or deny each Request For Admissions. 13. The persons assisting in the preparation of these responses are: ·•·Ray Fowler: as to all lnterrogatones. Requests For Acimissions, and Requests for Productron. ·+Rodney Schneider: as to the log entry made in t!1e discrepancy log. ,;··John I less: as to the log entry made in tile discrepancy log and Ills potential test1mony as described above.

I HEREBY CERTii=Y that the foregoing has been served on this 14th day of OctobeL 2013. as set forth below Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq Office 

### olthe Reg•onal Counsel Federal Aviation Adminrstratron P 0. Box ?0636 Atlanta, GA 30320 By Facsrrnlie (404) 305·5223 and regular U S Mair STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN. P A 7300 North Kendall Drive. SLIIte 380 M:ami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 670-1222 Fax: (305) 400-0685 Email.**;;;lliartgQIQ~t<"\'D.P·J.C0<tttn,st**TO: FROM: DATE: STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 7300 NORTH KENDALL DRIVE, SUITE 380 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 T: (305) 670-1222 F: (305)400-0685 

### FAX TRANSMISSION Christopher 

### R. Stevenson, Esq. ( 404) 305-5223 StuartA. Goldstein, Esq. October8, 2013 NUMBEROF PAGES INCLUDINGCOVER. 3 REGARDING: Liberty Foundation/Response To FAA's Limited Request For Production COMMENT 

## ================================================================== STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN Board Certified Aviation Attorney StuartA. Goldstein, P. A. 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 670-1222 Fax: (305) 400-0685 Cell (305) 338-4700 This electronic mail message contains confidential information which is an attorney-client privileged communication work product, proprietary in nature or otherwise protected by law from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above If you are not an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, your are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete this message completely from your computer IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE. Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U. S. Federal Tax advice contained in the email message, including attachments, is not intended or written by STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A., to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal-Revenue Service.



# IGOVERIIiNIENT 

### j EXHIBIT 

## i L_ 

# '

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of Hearings Washington, D. C.

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 (EIR 2011-GL-03-0070)

(Civil PenaltyAction) Hon J E Sullrvan. Administrative Law ,Judge



### RESPON.DEJ'fCS_A_NSW.f;.EUUQ..**CQM~** LIMITED REQUEST FOR PROQ!.!.QJlQl'l 1. The msrntenance entry that was made following the June 2011 marntenance was entered in the aircraft's Drscrepancy Log Book. It was destroyed in the fire. Acopy of the form of the Discrepancy Log Entry is attached hereto as Exhibit A Ttlis form appears rn the Maintenance Manual, approved by the FAA 2. All such documents have been produced previously. fiespondent does not 11ave possessron of non-oral cornrnunicatrons between the persons named in this Request. 3 None 4. f\ii such documents were pr·eviously produced or are almady in the possession of tile FAA. After the event of June, 2011, all maintenance records were presented to the FAA. n1cluding but not limited to, four binders of inspection records.

### CERTIFJCATE. ..Qf_§ER'liCE HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this 8th day of October. 2013. as set forth below. Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. Office ol the Regional Counsel Federal Aviat1on Administration P 0. Box 20636 Atlanta. GA 30320 By Facsimile (404) 305,5223 and regular U S Mail STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN. P A. 7300 North Kendall Drive. Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 Tel (305) 670-1222 Fax (305) 400-0685 Email: ;7t1,1**~.ct.QQ**lc.i:sJe j_npa(1f.1__1_tttne.t

By.

## ·•y;~li£~:_--"j!lr._:c_:.::c. StuartA. Goldstein At1orney For Respondent

/,**'.~UU.J'::'Tt** '•.**~-** t**-·;,--,~.-,;}** IH<"::·.;r_·:.t_ [.:C:t\F S: -j;:;J; •··,[t,')i i' ]:!'''•3 :'x··- ---,_.-

## B-17 Discrepann Form**Pl.l~l" -~------**  nf

_**----~~ lJb-1..'r~·panr\** **~** -**~ ----~----·------·-**  lltHt::

....

### -·------,-·· !};lft: C. InTerled B:.; (**l'rlifk~H\·** M: Corn·crh(· .\ction**~~rr·~·i.:h'd** 

### n,:

l'l·fi!i('<.l!l: ;;:

### ~---------·---------------~~~~~------------------~

j,**orn.-,t~·d** g\: ( \'dH-icJlt· '<

·-rlr-I**"••t;::~~**

## ..---·

# i-,_--~-;-~~;:~~~;.·;·1**.,:~**\: ( ('rl.tflLai'l' t;:**1-f(Jhb.;~**



# A..OU o-=>-OU-VC> '0'-.>'·o-o <) 0 ('.=<VII)

STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 7300 NORTH KENDALL DRIVE, SUITE 380 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 T: (305)670-1222 F (305)400-0685 

### FAX TRANSMISSION TO: Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. (404) 305-5223 FROM: StuartA. Goldstein, Esq. DATE: October8, 2013 NUMBEROF PAGES INCLUDINGCOVER 

### 3 REGARDING: Liberty Foundation/Response To FAA's Limited Requests For Admissions COMMENT 

## ================================================================== STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN Board Certified Aviation Attorney StuartA. Goldstein, P. A. 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 Tel (305) 670-1222 Fax (305) 400-0685 Cell (305) 338-4700 This electronic mail message contains confidential information which is an attorney-client privileged communication work product, proprietary in nature or otherwise protected by law frorn disclosure and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above If you are not an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, your are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have recefved this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete this message completely from your computer IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE. Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U. S. Federal Tax advice contained in the email message, including attachments, is not intended or written by STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A., to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed bythe Internal Revenue Service.

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of Hearings Washington, D. C.

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 (EIR 2011-GL·03·0070)

(Civil Penalty Action) Hon. J E Suilrvan. Administrative Law Judge**RESJ:QNO_ENT'~ANSWER~QQMPLAJNfl.I'H'S.** l.!M..!I_!;QBJ;QlLI;SLEQ.Fl ADMISStQN$ Respondent, The Liberty Foundatron. herewith answers the Complainant's Limited Requests For Admrssions 1, Denied 2. Admittecl 3 Der11ed 4 Denred 5-. Denied 6. Denied 7. Admitted that tile log entry referred to tn the Cornplamt was not made until after the aircraft was operated An appropriate entry 

### was made in the aircraft Discrepancy Log. 8. Authenticity aelm itteel 9 Denied 10 Denred 11. Denied2013··1 o-OB 1S- -,1 o-o (Grvn) -r 3054000(585 F,-om Stu-art A Golcl"'te•n

2

CJ::RTIFICATE OF S!=8VIC_E HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this 8th day of October, 2013. as set forth below: Christopher .R. Stevenson, Esq. Office of the Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration P. 0 Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 By Facsimile (404) 305-5223 and regular U. S Mail STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN, P ,ll, 7300 North Kendall Dnve, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 670-1222 Fax: (305) 400-0685 Ernaii:**st,Jal1~illllQ_a£luarUJet** By:**~·. ·.~;;;}i;,,**  '_.I:::/**tJ.:.::~-~·.~~~--··** Stuart A Goldstein Attorney For Respondent